Was "tea party girl" someone playing a joke? Or was that a real human being? No one can possible be that naive and condescending, can they?

Moderator note:

She's a message board troll with quite a bit of history on this site under various screennames (most famously as Starring_Emma). She pops up periodically and gives us Mods some excitement.

SR

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

It is a little eerie to know we have a troll stalking the threads waiting for a perfect opportunity to start a new ID and post random things about their "superiority". I'm going to start hoping from across the room into bed again, just like I did after watching Pet Cemetery so many years ago.

My only conservative side is the older type conservative. Conservation of the wilderness and environment. Other than that I am very liberal. Even though I work for the Marine Corps and support our country.... also a veteran, spent a yr in Iraq with the State Dept. I raise my daughters to be critical. For instance (since we don't live in North Korea or the old USSR) I dont think my girls should HAVE to say the Pledge of Allegance... to ANY country. And why is it that we now HAVE to stand for America the Beautiful??? One guy got beat up for not standing for America the Beautiful at a baseball game!

I support the federal government... who would mskis like to cut?? The National Park System, (the best in the world) the US Forest Service, the Boarder Patrol, HLS, the VA, NASA, I know alot of hard working feds, there are many of us here on MCAS Iwakuni Japan. We're doing the jobs the military can't or won't do. For instance, the Japanese Government does not want to discuss issues with the military, they want to talk with civilians. I think the Department of Defense should be cut and the US State Department budget increased, there are more military BAND members than there are FSOs (Foreign Service Officers). Thank goodness mskis "interpretation" of the constitution won't be the future for our great country.

My only conservative side is the older type conservative. Conservation of the wilderness and environment. Other than that I am very liberal. Even though I work for the Marine Corps and support our country.... also a veteran, spent a yr in Iraq with the State Dept. I raise my daughters to be critical. For instance (since we don't live in North Korea or the old USSR) I dont think my girls should HAVE to say the Pledge of Allegance... to ANY country. And why is it that we now HAVE to stand for America the Beautiful??? One guy got beat up for not standing for America the Beautiful at a baseball game!

I support the federal government... who would mskis like to cut?? The National Park System, (the best in the world) the US Forest Service, the Boarder Patrol, HLS, the VA, NASA, I know alot of hard working feds, there are many of us here on MCAS Iwakuni Japan. We're doing the jobs the military can't or won't do. For instance, the Japanese Government does not want to discuss issues with the military, they want to talk with civilians. I think the Department of Defense should be cut and the US State Department budget increased, there are more military BAND members than there are FSOs (Foreign Service Officers). Thank goodness mskis "interpretation" of the constitution won't be the future for our great country.

First of all, thank you for your service and I agree with just about everything in your first paragraph. As for my interpretation of the constitution, you are probably correct that what I would like to see will not come around. I just know why I believe what I believe and have read enough other documents to support my thoughts, as I am sure you have to form your beliefs.

I also agree that many there are several programs that do great work. Many of them can be consolidated into a few simple divisions to prevent overlap and encourage communication. However you are correct that I feel that the states should have the independence to regulate items that the constitution does not directly state that the federal government should regulate.

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. Time makes more converts than reason." - Thomas Paine Common Sense.

I support the federal government... who would mskis like to cut?? The National Park System, (the best in the world) the US Forest Service, the Boarder Patrol, HLS, the VA, NASA, I know alot of hard working feds, there are many of us here on MCAS Iwakuni Japan. We're doing the jobs the military can't or won't do. For instance, the Japanese Government does not want to discuss issues with the military, they want to talk with civilians. I think the Department of Defense should be cut and the US State Department budget increased, there are more military BAND members than there are FSOs (Foreign Service Officers). Thank goodness mskis "interpretation" of the constitution won't be the future for our great country.

This is one of the most interesting/significant observations I've read in a while about the need to emphasize the state department more and provide it additional resources, as in many ways they have become far more important in our globalized society than the traditional military.

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

My only conservative side is the older type conservative. Conservation of the wilderness and environment. . . . I support the federal government... The National Park System, (the best in the world) the US Forest Service, the Border Patrol, HLS, the VA, NASA, I know alot of hard working feds. . . We're doing the jobs the military can't or won't do. . . I think the Department of Defense should be cut and the US State Department budget increased, there are more military BAND members than there are FSOs (Foreign Service Officers).

Very good comments. I think we would be in a lot better shape in the world if we as a nation did more talking and doing good deeds than all the saber rattling and picking fights all around the world. Now we have so much of our economy tied up in supplying a bloated military that it is hard to cut military expenditures without hurting all of us. While at the same time our national park system needs funding really bad just to maintain the limited infrastructure it has. The Forest Service, BLM, the Bureau of Reclamation and EPA preserve and protect our quality of life and regularly are put on the chopping block at budget time while the military waddles up to the trough for another annual gorging. It is high time we deal with the morbid obesity of the US military. I respect those serving our country so well. I think we need to rethink our bellicose foreign policies.

More military band members than FSOs? Isn't that just ridiculous?

"I am very good at reading women, but I get into trouble for using the Braille method."

First of all, thank you for your service and I agree with just about everything in your first paragraph. As for my interpretation of the constitution, you are probably correct that what I would like to see will not come around. I just know why I believe what I believe and have read enough other documents to support my thoughts, as I am sure you have to form your beliefs.

I also agree that many there are several programs that do great work. Many of them can be consolidated into a few simple divisions to prevent overlap and encourage communication. However you are correct that I feel that the states should have the independence to regulate items that the constitution does not directly state that the federal government should regulate.

I understand that you are primarily libertarian in your political opinions. But I'm curious what you have read that leads you to believe the founders envisioned a libertarian type of government?

I understand that you are primarily libertarian in your political opinions. But I'm curious what you have read that leads you to believe the founders envisioned a libertarian type of government?

I think he is coming from a more states rights approach. That the Feds have gone beyond what the FFs had orginally intended and ursurped powers that were supposed to be reserved for the states. There are several practical problems with that idea, but we've beaten that horse to mush in other threads. It's like the guns discussion. We've covered that territory before ad infinitum, ad naseum.

I think he is coming from a more states rights approach. That the Feds have gone beyond what the FFs had orginally intended and ursurped powers that were supposed to be reserved for the states. There are several practical problems with that idea, but we've beaten that horse to mush in other threads. It's like the guns discussion. We've covered that territory before ad infinitum, ad naseum.

You sir are 100% correct. The libertarian platform is the only one that even begins to address this. Everyone else, regardless of party wants to increase spending and the size of government. The only thing they don't agree on is who to tax and how much.

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. Time makes more converts than reason." - Thomas Paine Common Sense.

I think he is coming from a more states rights approach. That the Feds have gone beyond what the FFs had orginally intended and ursurped powers that were supposed to be reserved for the states. There are several practical problems with that idea, but we've beaten that horse to mush in other threads. It's like the guns discussion. We've covered that territory before ad infinitum, ad naseum.

Originally posted by michalskis

You sir are 100% correct. The libertarian platform is the only one that even begins to address this. Everyone else, regardless of party wants to increase spending and the size of government. The only thing they don't agree on is who to tax and how much.

mskis stated he had read documents to support his libertarian philosophy, and I was assuming he was referring to documents written by or about the founders. Mskis, I was inquiring about what specific documents because I am genuinely curious.

mskis stated he had read documents to support his libertarian philosophy, and I was assuming he was referring to documents written by or about the founders. Mskis, I was inquiring about what specific documents because I am genuinely curious.

It was mostly documents from the founding fathers. Of all the places, http://oliverdemille.com/ and http://www.thesocialleader.com/ has the most information. While DeMille is an independent, I wonder if many of the modern libritarians are just quoting the ideas out of his books. Freedom Shift is the most prolific in terms of differences between the principles in the founding documents and our current government.

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. Time makes more converts than reason." - Thomas Paine Common Sense.

It was mostly documents from the founding fathers. Of all the places, http://oliverdemille.com/ and http://www.thesocialleader.com/ has the most information. While DeMille is an independent, I wonder if many of the modern libritarians are just quoting the ideas out of his books. Freedom Shift is the most prolific in terms of differences between the principles in the founding documents and our current government.

Thanks. I'll read through some of their stuff. I have a collection of the federalist papers at home that I read sometimes (especially when I am trying to fall asleep) and so far I haven't found much to really support any one version of what "the founders" intended, despite claims by politicians and talking heads.

On another message board, a young-ish woman who is an "enlightened" Third Worldophile and firm believer in cultural relativism defended the recent Air Jordan riots seen in shopping malls throughout the country. "Every culture has their status symbols", comparing the desire for sneakers to Apple fans standing in line for the latest iPhone.

Release the inner conservative!

Do Apple fanboys fight and stab each other or riot over the newest iPhone? Were there arrests at Target stores when the Missoni line first appeared on the shelves?

"Oh, but other people spend a lot of money on houses, cars and other status symbols. We all engage in conspicuous consumption What's wrong with spending money on sneakers?" Because the people who are spending hundreds of dollars on them generally belong to an underprivileged socioeconomic group that don't have the disposable income to spend on them. Houses are an investment, and provide the basic human need of shelter. Cars are necessary for commuting, working and performing the errands of day-to-day life in much of North America, and although they depreciate in value, they still provide a valuable function. There is a growing social stigma against those who live beyond their means by buying cars and houses that they can't afford. Same thing with sneakers, which have no utility when one doesn't wear them.

"Oh, but people spend a lot of money on clothes all the time." There's a world of difference between a middle-class professional woman spending $250 on a pair of comfortable shoes for the workplace, a middle-class tradesman spending $250 on a pair of made-in-the-USA Red Wing 964s that will last for years or even decades, and a struggling inner city resident spending $250 on a pair of Air Jordans they will seldom, if ever wear.

Nobody gently affirms poor rednecks who have expensive weapon arsenals that can hold back an Army division, "$3K millionaire" douchebags and their $125 Affliction and Ed Hardy t-shirts, or basement-dwelling nerds with thousands of dollars in Warhammer figurines with the "it's part of their culture!" excuse. Why defend those spending most of their already-paltry paychecks on sneakers?

Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell. -- Edward Abbey

You sir are 100% correct. The libertarian platform is the only one that even begins to address this. Everyone else, regardless of party wants to increase spending and the size of government. The only thing they don't agree on is who to tax and how much.

.

I support a different constitution in every county, with the local sheriff having sole law enforcement authority. If you really want multicult, that's the way to have it.

Thanks. I'll read through some of their stuff. I have a collection of the federalist papers at home that I read sometimes (especially when I am trying to fall asleep) and so far I haven't found much to really support any one version of what "the founders" intended, despite claims by politicians and talking heads.

To fall asleep, ouch. That's brutal.

The version that the papers support is what was adopted sometimes in response to what the authors heard around town. The federalist papers were created by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay to explain the constitution to the common man, which at that time as small shop keepers and farmers, but is argued by lawyers and scholars today. However, back then, people would read documents like these or the bible for fun, and discuss it with their friends and family. Today people talk about who was voted off the island or what happened on (insert prime time TV show here). If you go deeper into each of the biographies of the founding fathers and compare it to what was adopted, you will find that just over half were in full support of what was established.

I especially enjoy the contrast between Jefferson and Hamilton. However when push came to shove, Hamilton's papers correctly represent what was approved and not his own personal beliefs, which were more corporate in nature.

I would also suggest checking out Democracy in America from Tocqueville (Free on Google Books). It is shocking to see how different we were compared to now, and more so, the direction that we are going.

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. Time makes more converts than reason." - Thomas Paine Common Sense.

Nobody gently affirms poor rednecks who have expensive weapon arsenals that can hold back an Army division, "$3K millionaire" douchebags and their $125 Affliction and Ed Hardy t-shirts, or basement-dwelling nerds with thousands of dollars in Warhammer figurines with the "it's part of their culture!" excuse. Why defend those spending most of their already-paltry paychecks on sneakers?

I see this issue through two different lenses.The Anthropologist sits back and simply observes that one thing poor people sometimes do is acquire (often exaggerated) public expressions of wealth and status even though it is against their own personal self-interest (you spent all that money on WHAT?!). The wearing of gold jewelry, the expensive speakers, the huge, new, $30,000 4X4 in front of the mobile home (that also has Direct TV). We see it all the time. And I get that there is something going on with the desire to project something other than destitution and depravity as a counter to being disenfranchised.

At the same time, these folks are not going to improve their lot by spending their little money on frivolous purchases. Yes, depending on where you live, you may actually need a car to get to work. But the brand new pickup doesn't get you there any "better" than a used, less expensive car. And you are no less informed by watching network TV, or having sensibly proced shoes or going without audacious gold jewelry. This does not project the image of someone making careful financial decisions.

As I tell my kids, in life, so many people you encounter are out to sell you something. Anything. Your job is to separate what you want from what you need. If you can do that, you are way ahead of the game. These folks with overly priced items when the rest of their lives is destitute are not able to effectively separate these issues and it will be what keeps them in the cycle of poverty. Which is not to say NOT buying those things is a ticket to solvency. But its a step in the right direction.

The bottom line for me is that people want to sell you any kind of crap they can get money for and the consumers that fall into that trap are victims of a sort. Victims because they naively participate in this mainstream narrative of conspicuous consumption. But, only "sort of" because its not like a totalitarian regime forcing you to buy. You CAN resist the beast and save your money. It is possible. Hard for some, but not impossible. But people act against their own interests all the time, so I guess I should expect this to be any different...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
C'mon and get me you twist of fate
I'm standing right here Mr. Destiny
If you want to talk well then I'll relate
If you don't so what cause you don't scare me